This Renewed Motion to Compel is about Linux materials. The others being heard are the old, old motion from December of 2004, SCO's Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery, which is about SCO claiming IBM is stonewalling them about documents SCO thinks should exist in the files of IBM's executives and Board of Directors and about a dispute over who should testify on several issues; and the third motion that will be heard is the newest one, where SCO asks to do 25 additional depositions.

At first, I couldn't figure out what the amended notice meant, because there have been so many discovery motions from SCO, it's a little hard to keep track. The numbers helped me, hopefully, to sort it out. Here's my understanding. #365 is the December motion, originally filed as a sealed document, and then in redacted form, with exhibits [PDF] filed separately; then there is #503, where SCO interprets Judge Wells' orders, particularly the January 18, 2005 Order, to define nonpublic Linux materials more broadly than IBM does. We'll see which interpretation Wells decides to go with. She did order IBM to turn over all nonpublic Linux materials, but what does that entail? And #508 is SCO's most recent request to take 25 additional depositions. So, Judge Wells has the three of them down on her calendar to be heard on the same day, which makes sense, since all three are SCO asking for more discovery.

SCO's most recent 10-Q also helps to figure out what is what. Here's how they characterize the first two of the three motions:

The parties have also now fully briefed the Company’s December 23, 2004 Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery, which seeks to compel IBM’s compliance with prior Court orders relating to IBM’s obligation (1) to produce all documents pertaining to Linux from the files of high-level IBM executives and board members; and (2) to produce witnesses to testify on several topics in two deposition notices that SCO has served on IBM. The Court has not set a hearing date for this motion.

On September 6, 2005, the Company filed a renewed motion to compel IBM to produce information relating to IBM’s work on the source code that IBM contributed to Linux where such information is in IBM’s hands and not publicly available.

That's SCO's position. Hopefully, IBM will be able to get it through Judge Wells' head at the October 7 hearing, if not SCO's attorneys' heads, that Linux is not developed in secret the same way proprietary Unix is developed, as I've explained before. SCO seems to me to greatly misunderstand IBM's role in Linux kernel development, as well as how the kernel is developed. I remember how hard it was for SCO to comprehend the GPL, and this reminds me of that same unwillingness or inability to learn.

Earlier, SCO's whining in discovery was all about AIX. Then it was all about Project Monterey. Now it's all about Linux. Evidently, they can't find what they told the world they already had mountains of, namely evidence that Linux in any way infringes on SCO's code. And now deadlines are looming. They have to finally tell us what IBM has allegedly done, what materials were infringed, very soon. So now, SCO interprets Judge Wells' January 18 order as saying that IBM must turn over all Linux programmer notes, such as were ordered regarding AIX and Dynix:

Based on SCO's review of the discovery to date, IBM persists in its refusal to provide SCO with all non-public information relating to its Linux contributions — particularly the development history (e.g., programmer's notes, comments, design documents, white papers, and iterations, revisions, and interim versions of code contributed to Linux) of any code copied into Linux.

Hang on, there, cowboy. Having a different understanding of what a judge's order means isn't a "refusal" to comply. IBM is allowed to disagree and let the judge decide. SCO has its view, but instead of just saying so, they accuse IBM of a "refusal". I really hate when they do that, and they do that all the time.

Further, they claim that their interpretation is what Wells ordered. I have just reread the January order, again, and the April 19, 2005 order, and while SCO *asked* for that, it isn't what the judge ordered, by my honest reading. IBM doesn't read the orders that way either. Here's the heart of IBM's position, found in a letter attached as Exhibit 2:

Second, with respect to IBM's Linux contributions, the Court expressly ruled in an Order dated March 3, 2004 (and reaffirmed in its April 19, 2005 Order) that IBM is not required to produce to SCO information concerning IBM's Linux contributions insofar as such information is publicly available. The Court only ordered IBM to produce "all non-public Linux contribution information". (April 19, 2005 Order at 5-6.) As detailed in Peter Ligh's July 5 letter to Ted, IBM has fully complied with that obligation.

If you read the January order too, you will understand IBM's position, I think. As usual, SCO characterizes IBM's position as playing games in discovery. But, while Judge Wells may ultimately decide to order further discovery, it's not a "refusal" on IBM's part here. It's a difference of opinion as to what the order requires. We've seen SCO playing the incremental discovery game for a long time, and their mock outrage gets old fast.

I suppose it might be authentic. But then it speaks to a different problem. It reminds me of liars, who invariably assume everyone else in the world lies too. When you tell a liar the truth, they never believe you, because they are always looking for hidden angles. Because they lie, they assume you do too. Two honest people talking have an easier time communicating.

The issue being raised here is discovery gamesmanship. Boies Schiller has been in the news of late themselves, due to what Boies Schiller describes as an "inadvertent" failure to tell clients that the Boies family has a financial interest in a document management company, Amici. That story isn't going away. If anything, it's taking on legs, with the New York Times now covering the story. And, by my reading, it's not so much the seriousness of the matter as it is because a number of law firms who have dealt with Boies Schiller are unhappy with their conduct, specifically in discovery. Some now are complaining, as the Times article puts it, "that Mr. Boies has used Amici to put opponents at a disadvantage while enriching his family." In essence, the firm is being accused of using Amici to play games in discovery:

Lawyers for L. Dennis Kozlowski and Mark H. Swartz, former top executives at Tyco International who now face years of prison time, have accused Mr. Boies, Tyco's lawyer, of engaging in "rank gamesmanship to the defendants' disadvantage" by withholding a million potentially subpoenaed documents from the defense until the trial of the two men was nearly over, and millions more until after their conviction.

Mr. Boies, in an interview yesterday, said one set of issues was worthy of concern - the concerns about the ties to Amici - but dismissed the rest as overzealous advocacy.

"There is a disclosure issue here," Mr. Boies said. "That's a real issue, that's an issue that's worth talking about. But what's happening is a lot of desperate people who are in real trouble are trying to use it as a hook."

That's one interpretation. But even desperate people in real trouble deserve to have access to materials in discovery that might help them at trial. That is, after all, SCO's position in its discovery arguments here. And our legal system is set up, presumably, to give a man a fair shake, based on all the evidence, not based on what games lawyers play. So, while I'm not saying SCO can't persuade the judge, it hasn't, in this document, persuaded me, and by my lights, it has used tactics that don't endear.

The article goes on to describe the Boies Schiller style:

Still, some lawyers who have faced him or others at his firm say that Mr. Boies's firm plays a special brand of hardball. "They have been getting away with a lot of this stuff," said Aaron Richard Golub, who defended a modeling agency against a suit filed by models who were represented by Boies, Schiller. "They just pay the fine, that's all."

You'll remember the class-action lawsuit in May, where the judge reduced Boies Schiller legal fees. David Boies comments on that matter in the Times article:

Mr. Boies said that while mistakes were made in that case, events there had nothing to do with those in other cases, including the more recent disputes with lawyers for Deloitte and lawyers for Mr. Kozlowski and Mr. Swartz.

"The magistrate decided in favor of the plaintiffs and that was affirmed by the district judge," Mr. Boies said, "and the district judge held that we should've produced more documents faster."

But according to an order by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman, lawyers for the plaintiffs did not just move too slowly. They did not comply with court orders instructing them to answer written questions posed by the defendants' legal team, and Judge Pitman imposed a $25,000 penalty on them. In an order issued in June, he summarized the reasons: "Plaintiffs, by their counsel, repeatedly failed to comply with order directing that interrogatories be answered, provided contradictory sets of interrogatory answers with no explanation and provided interrogatory answers that were unquestionably designed to obfuscate rather than illuminate, notwithstanding an earlier order directing the interrogatories be answered."

See what I mean? Ironic, isn't it? Might it be, perhaps, that Boies Schiller just assumes that IBM is playing games in discovery, because Boies Schiller apparently does so? The fact that other law firms are now speaking out and complaining tells me that not all firms play such games in discovery. It also tells me that when you are merciless to others, which is what hardball is, later, when you slip and fall and need mercy -- and all humans do -- nobody feels like giving you any. That's just human nature. And that, in my opinion, may be why the Amici story is growing, instead of dying, the way I expected it to.

Plaintiff The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") files this Memorandum in
Support of its Renewed Motion to Compel pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

More than two years after SCO filed this lawsuit, IBM still has
not produced the compete development history of its Linux
contributions, which stand at the center of this case.

In an attempt to limit its own discovery obligations and deny
SCO the basic materials it needs to develop its claims, IBM has
repeatedly tried to persuade the Court that SCO's case implicates
UNIX and Linux source code and no more. SCO has by now repeatedly
demonstrated the fallacy of IBM's position by establishing the
importance of the development history of the code that IBM
and third parties have copied into Linux.

The Court has agreed with SCO on this issue in three successive
Orders. See Order of March 3, 2004, at 4-5; Order of January
18, 2005, at 9-12, 15-17; Order of April 19, 2005, at 4-6. In those
Orders, pointing to the fundamental importance of the programming
history of the code ultimately copied into Linux, the Court ordered
IBM to produce all of its Linux-development information, including
the code of IBM's AIX and Dynix operating systems and their
development histories. Id.

Yet IBM has construed the Court's Orders to cover
programming-history information only for AIX and Dynix — not
Linux. In its Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's January 18
Order, IBM complained that the Court had not specifically ordered
IBM to comply with SCO's requests for Linux-development
information.(1)See IBM Motion for
Reconsideration of

2

the Court's January 18 Order at 3 n.4. Rejecting IBM's argument,
the Court ruled again that its "prior orders" had directed IBM to
provide "ALL non-public Linux contribution information," and
reordered IBM to comply within 75 days. April 19 Order at 5.

Having now failed to provide all such information, even while it
claims to have produced it, IBM apparently seeks to relitigate this
seemingly closed issue yet again. IBM produced AIX and Dynix
programming history pursuant to the Court's January and April 2005
Orders. But IBM has not produced any significant programmer's
notes, comments, design documents, white papers, and iterations,
revisions, or interim versions of its Linux contributions from
IBM's multi- billion dollar Linux Technology Center, through which
it has made "the vast majority of those contributions." Letter
dated October 10, 2003, from T. Shaugnessy to M. Heise, at 3
(Exh. 1).

SCO asks the Court again to compel IBM immediately to produce
the complete history of IBM's Linux-development effort with respect
to all contributions that IBM has made to Linux, up to the present,
and to consider the propriety of imposing sanctions against IBM for
its continued and persistent refusal to provide such Court-ordered
and plainly relevant information.

In its First Request for Production of Documents and First Set
of Interrogatories (June 24, 2003), SCO requested all of IBM's
Linux-contribution information:

Interrogatory No. 5 — "Identify all IBM or Sequent
personnel that work or worked on developing source code, derivative
works, modifications or methods for AIX, Dynix, and Linux,
specifying for each person their precise contributions to
each."

Document Request No. 11 — "All contributions made
without confidentiality restrictions by IBM or anyone under its
control including, but not limited to, source code, binary code,
derivative works, methods, and modifications to Open Source
Development Lab, Linus Torvalds, Red Hat or any other entity."

Document Request No. 29 — "All documents
concerning any UNIX source code, derivative works, modifications or
methods disclosed by IBM to any third party or to the public."

Document Request No. 32 — "All documents
concerning any UNIX source code, derivative works, modifications or
methods found in Linux, open source, or the public domain."

Document Request No. 35 — "All documents
concerning any contributions to Linux or to open source made by IBM
and/or Sequent."

SCO's First Request for Production of Docs. and First Set of
Interrogs. (6/24/03) at 8, 10, 13.

In moving to compel a complete response to Interrogatory No. 5
and Document Request No. 11, SCO noted IBM's failure to respond to
"the most important part of the interrogatory" — the request
for the specific files and development work that each IBM
programmer contributed to the development of AIX, Dynix, and Linux.
See SCO Mem. in Support of SCO Motion to Compel, at 9, 13.
In support of its request, SCO showed that the 15-year development
process

4

that separated IBM's licensing of UNIX and IBM's ultimate misuse
of that licensed code implicates the code's entire development
history — from UNIX, to AIX and Dynix, to Linux. Therefore,
SCO argued, IBM "should be required to identify and produce
all of its contributions and development work in
Linux." Id. at 9 (underline added).

In addition to detailing the outstanding Linux-development
discovery in its November 2003 Motion to Compel, SCO filed its
Memorandum Regarding Discovery in May 2004, which outlined for the
Court the specific IBM materials that SCO sought. SCO again
demonstrated the relevance of the code's programming history with
respect to SCO's analysis of IBM's Linux- development efforts.
See SCO Mem. Re Disc. at 8-9.

Most recently, when IBM again sought to limit its discovery
obligations by asking the Court to reconsider the January 18 Order,
SCO explained:

"In many instances there may well have been a
development process — including one conducted by IBM or
Sequent programmers immersed in SCO's proprietary UNIX —
between the selection of AIX or Dynix material for Linux and the
actual contributions to Linux. SCO requires access to that
development history (including both code and related
documentation) for exactly the same reason this Court has held that
SCO needed access to the material evidencing the developers and
development process of Dynix and AIX themselves."

SCO Opp. to IBM Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's January
18 Order at 9 n.4 (emphasis added).

IBM has persistently denied SCO this discovery. IBM first argued
that producing the development history of its Linux contributions
was too difficult, objecting to SCO's requests as overbroad and
unduly burdensome. See IBM's Responses to SCO's First Set of
Interrogs. and Doc. Reqs. (8/13/03) at 5, 21-26. In response to
SCO's Motion to Compel, IBM again refused to

5

comply with SCO's request for IBM to "identify and produce
all of its contributions and development work in Linux." IBM
Opp. to SCO Motion to Compel at 3 (emphasis in original). IBM
maintained that SCO first should be required to identify particular
lines of code that IBM misused, and only then would IBM "provide
SCO with the development history of that code to the extent
possible." Id.

In addition to arguing that the requested production was too
burdensome, IBM tried to convince this Court that any "development
history of the code IBM in fact contributed to Linux is therefore
irrelevant." IBM Response to SCO Mem. re Disc. at 14 n.5. At
hearings in September and October 2004, IBM argued that AIX and
Dynix programming history was entirely irrelevant to this case,
since "this discovery is not in any way necessary to prove a claim
for a public breach of contract." Tr. (10/19/94) at 57. IBM
claimed:

"It's about Unix and Linux. The only road map that
counts, Your Honor, is what's in Unix and what's in Linux. And
that's the comparison. And you can compare Microsoft Word source
code or AIX source code or Dynix source code all you want. It is
entirely irrelevant to the question of whether Unix is
substantially similar to Linux."

Tr. (9/15/04) at 116. The Court rejected IBM's argument and
(re)ordered IBM to produce the outstanding discovery. See
January 18 Order at 9-12, 15-17. In response, IBM again recast its
argument. IBM argued that — while specifically ordered to
produce all programmer's notes, design documents, and code versions
and changed for AIX and Dynix — it was not obligated to
produce any programming history for its Linux contributions.
In fact, IBM complained in its most recent motion that "having been
given an inch," SCO sought "to take a mile" by suggesting that the
Order "requires IBM to detail its Linux contributions." IBM Motion
for Reconsideration of the Court's January 18 Order at 3 n.4.

6

C. The Court Has Repeatedly Ordered IBM To Produce Its
Linux-Development Work

After considering both parties' initial motions to compel on
these issues, the Court ordered IBM "to provide further responses
to SCO's interrogatory numbers two, five, and eleven," specifying
that IBM must also provide "to SCO any and all non-public
contributions it has made to Linux." Order (3/3/04) at 4-5
(emphasis added).

Almost one year later, ruling on SCO's Renewed Motion to Compel,
the Court again ordered IBM to supplement its response to
Interrogatory No. 5. See Order (1/18/05) at 15-16. In doing
so, the Court settled an issue that had pervaded discovery
disputes: Could IBM withhold from SCO everything but source code,
or was IBM also obligated to provide SCO with the complete
programming history of the allegedly misused code? Citing the
"general principle that 'at the discovery stage, the concept of
relevance should be construed very broadly,'" the Court ordered IBM
to provide the complete development history of the code in
question, including "programmer's notes, design documents, white
papers, the comments and notes made by those who did the changes,"
in addition to "the changes to the code" and "the names and
information concerning those individuals who made the changes."
Id. at 9, 15-16.

In its most recent Order, the Court addressed IBM's unilateral
attempt to "modify its discovery obligations" by limiting the scope
of Linux-development work that it was required to produce. April 19
Order at 5. While the Court deferred issuing a "premature" ruling
because IBM had not yet completed, and could still cure any
deficiency in, the required production, the Court nevertheless
rejected IBM's position, warning that "prior orders make it clear
that IBM is to provide ALL non-public Linux contribution
information." Id. (emphasis in original). The Court also
reiterated that the Linux-development-work "production is to be
specific in nature"

7

and is "inherent within the court's previous orders because it
would be considered 'non-public' Linux information that is
available to IBM." Id. at 6.

D. IBM Has Not Produced All Documents Concerning Its
Linux-Development Work

The Court's April 2005 Order directed IBM to complete its
production by August 1. That deadline has passed, and IBM has
recently confirmed its view, both in writing and in conversations
with counsel for SCO, that IBM has produced all of the "non-public
Linux contribution information" that it is obligated to produce.
See, e.g., Letter dated July 19, 2005, from T. Shaughnessy
to B. Hatch, at 1 (Exh. 2). Based on SCO's
review of the discovery to date, IBM persists in its refusal to
provide SCO with all non-public information relating to its Linux
contributions — particularly the development history (e.g.,
programmer's notes, comments, design documents, white papers, and
iterations, revisions, and interim versions of code contributed to
Linux) of any code copied into Linux.(2) To illustrate:

Although IBM has (inadvertently, it appears) produced numerous
Linux source-code files with its CMVC production, IBM has not
produced the many more files from the Linux development tree that
(it stands to reason) must also be stored in CMVC.(3) Under the Court's
orders, IBM must produce all non-public Linux-development
information stored in CMVC or in any other revision control
system.

8

Although IBM contributed the AIX Journaling File System (JFS)
to Linux, IBM's CMVC production contains no source code concerning
the origin or development of the JFS Linux patch, including the
programming history necessary to substantiate IBM's claim that it
independently developed JFS code as part of its OS/2 operating
system.

Although IBM is a founding member and active participant in the
Open Source Development Lab (OSDL), IBM's production does not
contain any code or internal e-mails concerning Linux-development
work in conjunction with the OSDL. Fewer than 40 documents in IBM's
May and July 2005 productions even reference the OSDL.

Aside from the conspicuous absence of significant
Linux-development programming history, materials that IBM has
produced confirm the existence of discovery that IBM has withheld.
For example:

REDACTED

REDACTED

9

IBM's CMVC production includes database entries for at least
450 JFS-related files but does not contain the files themselves.
Instead, IBM has replaced them with a "non-responsive" placeholder.
In correspondence with IBM counsel, SCO requested that IBM produce
these and other missing files, but IBM responded that the files
"are neither part of nor are related to the AIX operating system,
and thus were properly withheld from production."(7) Contrary to IBM's view,
materials related to JFS are obviously responsive to SCO's requests
for Linux contributions information, and must be produced pursuant
to the Court's orders.

REDACTED

CONCLUSION

This Court has repeatedly held that Linux-development materials
are relevant and has ordered IBM to produce them. SCO respectfully
requests that the Court again compel IBM's immediate compliance
with the Court's orders to produce all documents concerning IBM's
development work for Linux with respect to all contributions that
IBM has made to Linux, up to

10

the present, and that the Court consider the propriety of
imposing sanctions against IBM for its continued and persistent
refusal to provide such Court-ordered and plainly relevant
information.

Plaintiff The SCO Group, Inc. hereby certifies that a true and
correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of
SCO's Renewed Motion to Compel was served by U.S. mail or hand
delivery on Defendant International Business Machines Corporation
on the 6th day of September, 2005:

By U.S. Mail:

David Marriott, Esq.
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
[address]

Donald J. Rosenberg, Esq.
[address]

By Hand Delivery:

Todd Shaughnessy, Esq.
Snell & Wilmer LLP
[address]

(signature)

12

EXHIBIT 1

13

[Snell & Wilmer letterhead]

October 10, 2003

VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL

Mark J. Heise
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
[address]

Re: SCO v. IBM / IBM v. SCO — IBM's Discovery
Responses

Dear Mark:

We have reviewed your letter of September 22, 2003, relating to
our telephone call on September 18, 2003. This letter responds
thereto.

In answer to your questions about when SCO can expect to receive
documents responsive to specific requests, IBM has produced, and
will continue to produce, responsive, non-privileged documents as
they are collected, reviewed, and processed.

I. General Objections

General Objection Nos. 1-3, 5, 7, 10. I believe my
September 15 letter to you, and your September 22 letter to me, are
consistent. Please advise if you disagree.

General Objection No. 4. As stated in my September 15
letter to you, IBM has attempted to collect, where appropriate,
documents dating as far back as January 1, 1985. If there are
specific categories of documents for which you would like us to
search for older documents than that we are producing, please let us
know so that we can discuss. Our accompanying letter regarding
SCO's discovery responses details the IBM document requests for
which we request that SCO perform a broader search.

General Objection No. 6. As I made clear in subsequent
telephone calls and correspondence, your identification of terms
such as NUMA, RCU and SMP is insufficient to particularize the code
and other alleged trade secrets which SCO alleges IBM has
wrongfully contributed to Linux. As you know, we have moved to
compel specific answers to IBM's interrogatories and we understand
that SCO intends to

14

supplement its answers to interrogatories. We do not believe
this issue can be resolved until we have adequate answers to our
interrogatories, and a detailed and specific list of the trade
secrets or confidential information that SCO contends IBM has
misappropriated.

General Objection No. 8. I believe my September 15 letter
to you, and your September 22 letter to me, are consistent —
as we discussed, IBM is not, as a general matter, attempting to
collect documents that are generally available to the public, but
to the extent they are among the documents we have collected, we
are not withholding them on this basis.

General Objection No. 10. I believe my September 15
letter to you, and your September 22 letter to me, are consistent.
Please advise if you disagree.

General Objection No. 11. As we discussed, and as my
September 15 letter explains, IBM has attempted to discern the
documents SCO seeks, and to locate those documents for production.
As my letter also confirms, IBM will produce responsive,
non-privileged documents despite this objection. The issue with
respect to Intel processors is addressed in Response to Request
Nos. 40-41 below.

General Objection No. 15. I believe my September 15
letter to you, and your September 22 letter to me, are consistent.
Please advise if you disagree.

General Objection No. 17. This issue is resolved by the
entry of the Stipulated Protective Order.

General Objection No. 18. Agreed.

General Objection No. 19. During the telephone call, we
confirmed that we were not withholding documents on the basis that
the documents relate to prior versions, releases and updates of AIX
or Dynix, or on the basis of code being a derivative of AIX or
Dynix, rather than AIX or Dynix themselves. However, since SCO has
not yet specified the code that it alleges IBM has wrongfully
contributed to Linux, we remain unclear as to the scope and meaning
of SCO's requests for "modifications", "methods", and "derivative
works". As indicated in General Objection No. 6 above, we do not
believe that this issue can be resolved until we have SCO's
supplemental answers to interrogatories identifying with
specificity the trade secrets or other confidential information at
issue. With respect to the other issues you raise here, see our
Response to Request Nos. 2 and 3 below.

General Objection No. 20. The definition of "IBM" for
purposes of our responses includes officers. We are not aware of
any directors who might have relevant

15

information. We agree, for purposes of the discovery requests at
issue, to interpret "IBM" to include Sequent, to the extent Sequent
materials are in IBM's custody, possession, or control.

Response to Request Nos. 2 and 3. My e-mail to you of
October 8 addressed the open issues regarding these requests. As
detailed in that note, IBM will commence production of source code
for the AIX and Dynix base operating systems once the process for
notification of third parties (as specified in Paragraph 10 of the
Stipulated Protective Order) is exhausted.

Response to Request No. 10. I believe my September 15
letter to you, and your September 22 letter to me, are consistent.
Please advise if you disagree.

Response to Request No. 11. Your request, even as
narrowed, remains overly broad and unduly burdensome. Until SCO
specifies the wrongful contributions IBM has allegedly made to
Linux in violation of SCO's alleged confidentiality rights, it is
very difficult to make a reasonable assessment as to the proper
scope of discovery in this case. In the absence of that
clarification, we have nevertheless attempted to conduct a
reasonable search for documents that relate to IBM's open-source
contributions to Linux. The vast majority of those contributions
are made through the LTC; the OSSC is the corporate clearinghouse
for those contributions. Our searches to date have thus included
individuals in both of those groups, as well other potential
sources of documents relating to IBM's contributions to Linux that
have come to our attention. We are not limiting our searches to any
particular geographic area — indeed, they have already
included individuals residing in Beaverton, OR, Austin, TX, and a
variety of other IBM locations. Our efforts to identify and collect
documents responsive to this request are continuing, and we believe
will be facilitated by adequate answers to our interrogatories.

16

Response to Request Nos. 12-14. IBM stands by its
objections to these requests. We agreed that we will provide
documents sufficient to identify the third parties, if any, to whom
IBM provided UNIX, AIX, or Dynix source code.

Response to Request Nos. 15-17. Both parties have agreed
to exchange supplemental answers containing names of employees and
general subject matter of knowledge on October 10, 2003.

Response to Request No. 18. We have agreed to produce
documents, subject to our agreement concerning General Objection
Nos. 1-3, 5, 7, and 10 set forth above, and with the understanding
that Mr. Palmisano is among those whose files were reviewed. I
believe that resolves this issue. If not, please advise.

Response to Request Nos. 19-25. I believe my September 15
letter to you, and your September 22 letter to me, are consistent.
Please advise if you disagree.

Response to Request Nos. 26-27. As we discussed, IBM
stands by its objection that these requests, as phrased, are
overbroad and unduly burdensome. We have agreed, however, to
provide supplemental answers to interrogatories identifying the
names of employees and general subject matter of knowledge on
October 10, 2003.

Response to Request No. 28. We have agreed that IBM will
search for responsive, non-privileged documents from IBM employees
with significant involvement in technical, business development,
and contractual aspects of Project Monterey. During our call, we
agreed that it would be unduly burdensome to require IBM to search
for this information from every employee who had any involvement in
Project Monterey.

Response to Request Nos. 29-31. With respect to these
requests, General Objection Nos. 6 and 19 remain unresolved. We
have agreed, however, to produce non-privileged documents
identified through a reasonable search sufficient to identify Unix,
AIX, or Dynix source code disclosed by IBM to a third party or the
public.

Response to Request Nos. 32-34. Agreed.

Response to Request No. 35. We confirmed that we will
conduct a reasonable search and produce, from the files of LTC,
OSSC, or other personnel who may have relevant information,
responsive, non-privileged documents relating to Unix, AIX or Dynix
source code contributed by IBM to open source, or relating to open
source contributions by IBM to Linux.

17

Response to Request No. 36. We had previously agreed to
provide organizational and/or personnel charts for particular units
involved in AIX, Dynix, and Linux development or maintenance.
Historical organizational and/or personnel charts for Project
Monterey, to the extent such documents still exist, will be
captured in our production in response to your Request No. 28. We
are not familiar with the "Project Gemini" referenced in your
letter; please provide clarification.

Response to Request No. 37. Agreed.

Response to Request Nos. 38-39. With your clarification
and limitations, I believe we are in agreement concerning the
documents IBM agrees to produce.

Response to Request Nos 40-41. These requests remain
overbroad and unduly burdensome despite your proposed limitation.
For example, the Dynix/ptx operating system ran only on Intel
processors. Your request for "all documents concerning IBM's use of
[Dynix] on Intel processors" would literally call for the
production of nearly every single document in the company relating
to Dynix/ptx. Please clarify the types of documents you are looking
for so that we can have a meaningful discussion about how to narrow
these requests.

Response to Request No. 42. See Response to Request No.
11 above.

Response to Request Nos. 43-52. Agreed.

III. Interrogatory Responses

We agreed to exchange supplemental answers to interrogatories
identifying the names of employees, including officers, with a
general description of the subject matter of their knowledge on
October 10.

Very truly yours,(signature of Todd Shaugnessy)
Todd Shaughnessy

cc: Brent Hatch
David Marriott
Peter Ligh

18

EXHIBIT 2

19

[Snell & Wilmer letterhead]

July 19, 2005

VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL

Brent O. Hatch
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
[address]

Re: SCO v. IBM; IBM v. SCO

Dear Brent:

I write in response to Ted Normand's July 14, 2005 letter to
David Marriott.

First, Ted's concern that IBM has withheld pre-1991 AIX source
code is unfounded. To the extent there is AIX source code in CMVC
that was written prior to 1991 and maintained in CMVC, we have
produced it. We have repeatedly searched for, but have been unable
to find, any pre-1991 AIX source code or revision control
information other than that which may be in CMVC. Please provide us
with the basis for Ted's statement: "Our information is that IBM
does possess the source code for all versions of AIX prior to
1991". If you have any specific information about where source code
for versions of AIX prior to 1991 are located within IBM, let us
know and we will follow up on it.

Second, with respect to IBM's Linux contributions, the Court
expressly ruled in an Order dated March 3, 2004 (and reaffirmed in
its April 19, 2005 Order) that IBM is not required to produce to
SCO information concerning IBM's Linux contributions insofar as
such information is publicly available. The Court only ordered IBM
to produce "all non-public Linux contribution information". (April
19, 2005 Order at 5-6.) As detailed in Peter Ligh's July 5 letter
to Ted, IBM has fully complied with that obligation.

The issues you raise under the headings of "Approximately
245,325 Missing Files", "Approximately 152,887 Un-Catalogued
Files", and "Removal of CMVC Change-Log History" require more
investigation and analysis. Because some of the people at IBM who
were involved in prepairing the CMVC data for production to SCO
several months ago are currently on vacation, I am unable to
provide a response to those issues at this time. We will provide
you with responses to those issues as soon as we can.

I write to identify deficiencies in the production of the CMVC
(AIX) database (the "CMVC/AIX Production") that IBM has made in
response to the Magistrate Court's Order Regarding SCO's Renewed
Motion to Compel Discovery dated January 18, 2005 (the "January 18
Order").

As an initial matter, IBM has not produced any AIX source code
prior to 1991. Todd Shaughnessy has asserted that "CMVC has been
used in AIX development since 1991. Other than the AIX source code
stored in CMVC, IBM does not maintain revision control information
for AIX prior to 1991." Affidavit of Todd Shaughnessy (May 3, 2005)
("Shaughnessy Aff.") ¶ 7. That might be true, but irrespective
of the availability of revision control information prior to 1991,
SCO has asked IBM to produce AIX code prior to 1991, in whatever
format IBM has stored such code, and the Court has ordered IBM to
produce it. Our information is that IBM does possess the source
code for all versions of AIX prior to 1991. Please let me know by
July 19 whether IBM will produce all code, notes and revision
history for AIX prior to 1991.

Similarly, SCO asked IBM to identify the contributions that IBM
has made to Linux, the specific identity of the contributors, and
the specific contributions that each contributor made. Although IBM
claims to have identified IBM's non-public contributions to Linux
and the contributors (as set forth in Peter Ligh's July 5 letter to
me), IBM has not identified the specific contributions that each
contributor made. Nor has IBM identified the specific contributions
that each contributor made with respect to IBM's public
contributions to Linux. Under the Magistrate's March 2003, January
2005, and April 2005 Orders, IBM must produce that category of
information. Please let me know by July 19 whether and when IBM
will identify the specific IBM contributions (both public and
non-public) to Linux that each contributor has made.

In addition, based on our review of the CMVC/AIX Production and
as detailed below, we disagree with Mr. Shaughnessy's assertion
that the CMVC/AIX Production contains "one hundred percent (100%)
of the source code in CMVC that is part of or

We have identified approximately 245,325 entries in the CMVC
database for which no file exists in the file trees associated with
AIX (the "Missing Files").(1) Most of the Missing Files are
marked "non-responsive." Since "non-responsive" is not a term used
in software programming, we infer that IBM removed the files marked
"non-responsive" because IBM concluded that the files were not
responsive to the January 18 Discovery Order. Please promptly
advise me if our conclusion is inaccurate. Notwithstanding the
designation of "non-responsive," a large number of the file names
associated with the Missing Files relate to AIX kernel code, AIX
shared libraries, and AIX compilers — source code that
clearly is at issue in the litigation.(2) It appears, for
example, that at least 450 of the Missing Files relate to the
Journaling File System (JFS).(3) As SCO has
explained to the Court, IBM contributed JFS to Linux without
modification, and JFS is one of the components of AIX centrally at
issue in this litigation.

Mr. Shaughnessy has stated that in preparing its CMVC/AIX
Production, IBM "removed the contents of the source files and
programmer's notes that did not relate to AIX." Shaughnessy Aff.
¶ 18. As the foregoing files are part of or relate to AIX, we
hereby request that you promptly produce all of the Missing Files
and any and all other files related to AIX otherwise not produced.
We also request that you produce the log history showing the
"contents" of the source files and programmer's notes that IBM
removed from the CMVC/AIX Production so that we may verify the
extent to which AIX-related files may have been removed. The Court
ordered IBM to produce "ALL AIX information" on CMVC,
January 18 Order at 10; our request for the log is a logical and
appropriate extension of IBM's discovery obligation.

30

Approximately 152,887 Un-Catalogued Files

We have identified approximately 152,887 files that do appear in
the AIX file tree, but do not have a corresponding indexed entry in
the CMVC database (the "Un-Catalogued Files"). IBM uses the CMVC
database entries to provide ready access to, and navigation of, the
files in CMVC. Without the corresponding CMVC database entries, it
is impossible to access or review the Un-Catalogued Files in the
way that IBM has maintained them in the ordinary course of
business. In addition, barring an exhaustive manual examination of
these files, it is very difficult for us to determine to which AIX
components each file belongs, and it is usually impossible for us
to know the name of each file. We therefore request prompt
production of the CMVC database entries that correspond properly to
the 152,997 Un-Catalogued Files, and any and all database entries
related to AIX otherwise not produced.

Removal of CMVC Change-Log History

Upon exit of any command-line shell in AIX, the system apparently
retains an annotated history of commands run by the user. We have
reviewed the user history archive of the copy of AIX produced in
the CMVC/AIX Production and have identified (among others) the
following commands that IBM appears to have run in preparing the
CMVC/AIX Production:

rm bash_history. This command removes the history of past
events. Such history is useful for repeating past commands. We
request that you promptly produce all shell history resulting from
your preparation of the CMVC/AIX Production so that we may identify
more precisely the acts taken to prepare the CMVC database for
production. This request includes the bash_history for all root
users as well as all administrators.

rm log. This command removes the log file. The log demonstrates
a proper history of commands run against the operating system. We
request that you promptly produce all log files related to your
preparation of the CMVC/AIX Production so that we may identify more
precisely the acts taken to prepare the CMVC database for
production. This request includes the log file for all root users
as well as all administrators.

Thank you for your prompt attention to these issues. As I am
sure you appreciate, IBM's complete production of all of the AIX-,
CMVC-, and Linux-related material that

31

SCO has requested and that the Court has repeatedly ordered IBM
to produce is a prerequisite to SCO's compliance with the Court's
revised scheduling order.

Sincerely,(signature of Edward Normand)
Edward Normand

cc: Brent Hatch
Todd M. Shaughnessy

32

EXHIBIT 10

33

(Snell & Wilmer letterhead)

August 8, 2005

VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL

Brent O. Hatch
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
[address]

Re: SCO v. IBM; IBM v. SCO

Dear Brent:

I write to follow up on my July 19, 2005 letter to you,
responding to Ted Normand's July 14, 2005 letter to David
Marriott.

First, with respect to the issues raised under the
heading "Approximately 245,325 Missing Files," Ted's letter does
not identify, and we have been unable to determine, how he arrived
at the number 245,325. However, as I stated in my May 3, 2005
declaration, we did not produce to SCO any components in CMVC that
are unrelated to AIX or its code, internal design, or methods, such
as code and information relating to IBM hardware, firmware,
manufacturing-related components, and middleware and other software
applications. Components that were withheld were replaced with a
"non-responsive" placeholder. As we have repeatedly informed you,
the CMVC server at IBM that contains source code and information
related to AIX also contains a large amount of source code and
other material that is neither part of, nor related to, AIX.
Furthermore, directory names such as "/src/bos/kernel/base" that
are recorded in the CMVC database are directory names that do not
necessarily correspond to the AIX operating system. We have
investigated each of the specific "non-responsive" components
identified in Ted's letter, and have confirmed that these
components are neither part of nor related to the AIX operating
system, and were thus properly withheld from production. If you
have a reasonable basis to believe that any other specific
"non-responsive" files contain information related to the AIX
operating system, please identify these files and why you believe
they may be related to AIX. As for Ted's request that we provide a
"log history showing the 'contents' of the source files and
programmer's notes that IBM removed from the CMVC/AIX Production,"
IBM is not obligated to produce such information. Nor, in any
event, have we maintained such a comprehensive "log history."

34

Second, with respect to the issues raised under the
heading "Approximately 152,887 Un-catalogued Files," Ted's letter
does not identify, and we have been unable to determine, how he
arrived at the number 152,887 (or, as stated later in the letter,
152,997). Based on Ted's description of these "Un-Catalogued
Files," however, it appears that he is referring to instances in
which there is a source code file without any corresponding entry
in the CMVC database describing that source code file. As you may
know, CMVC consists of two separate layers: the underlying source
code files (SCCS files), and a database directory of those files.
We believe that during normal development activity, operations such
as creating a new file and then undoing the create can leave behind
an SCCS file, with no corresponding information in the CMVC
database directory. In preparing the CMVC server for production, we
used the database to identify which CMVC components were neither
part of nor related to AIX, and removed the corresponding source
files. We believe the "Un-Catalogued Files" likely include both
AIX-related files, and non-AIX-related files. However, because the
"Un-Catalogued Files" did not have database entries allowing us to
determine whether they were or were not part of or related to AIX,
we did not delete any of the underlying source code files, and
produced the entirety of these "Un-Catalogued Files" to SCO. In
short, the CMVC data we produced was, if anything,
overinclusive.

Third, with respect to Ted's request that IBM produce all
shell histories and log files related to our preparation of the
CMVC server, IBM does not have a comprehensive collection of the
shell histories and log files. In any case, IBM is not obligated to
produce such information, nor was it ordered by the Court to do
so.

Very truly yours,(signature of Todd Shaughnessy)
Todd M. Shaughnessy

TMS:dw
cc: Edward Normand
David Marriott
Peter Ligh
Amy Sorenson

35

EXHIBIT 11

(FILED UNDER SEAL)

36

Memorandum Footnotes:

The January 18 Order to produce all versions of AIX and Dynix
code only highlights the flaw in IBM's argument. AIX and Dynix are
themselves relevant to this litigation because they are stages in
the development of Linux code. By ordering IBM to produce "all
versions and changes to AIX and Dynix," January 18 Order at 9-10,
the Court essentially ordered IBM to produce the development
history for these interim stages in the development of Linux. If
the Court saw fit to order that level of development information,
then it certainly follows that the Court's Orders cover programming
histories for the most proximate stages in Linux development.

In addition, IBM has reduced the amount of publicly available
Linux-contribution information by removing its Linux-patch
contributions from its website
(http://www-124.ibm.com/linux/projects/) some time between February
24 and March 8, 2005 ("the removal date"). IBM's obligation to
provide SCO with accurate and up-to-date Linux-contribution
information is inherent to SCO's requests and to this Court's
orders. As a result, any Linux patches that IBM submitted after the
removal date constitute non-public Linux-contribution information
that IBM must produce pursuant to the Court's orders. Nonetheless,
IBM's completed production does not contain source code or
development history for any patches IBM contributed to Linux after
the removal date.

IBM has also withheld the index entries (from the CMVC database)
that describe and correspond to the produced Linux files. These
entries are necessary (among other things) to access and review the
code files in the manner that IBM maintained them in the ordinary
course of business.

For example, the file marked as "Non-responsive5742" corresponds
to 252 files in the directory src/bos/kernel/base/. The file marked
"Non-responsive575" corresponds to 32 files in the directory
src/box/kernel/fs/. The file marked "Non-responsive5760"
corresponds to 3 files in the directory /src/box/kernel/init/. The
file marked "Non-responsive5761" corresponds to 3 files in the
directory src/box/kernel/lib/licsys/, and 4 files elsewhere in
src/bos/kernel/lib. The file marked "Non-responsive5765"
corresponds to 41 files in the directory src/bos/kernel/mm/. The
file marked "Non-responsive5768" corresponds to 23 files in the
directory src/bos/kernel/lib/libcnet/.